Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

626

Dominion General Discussion / Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?

« on: August 15, 2016, 11:19:00 pm »

Records for the first ten seasons are here: http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Dominion_League

Three more recent championship matches are recorded here.

The championship matches aren't that important for doing statistics.  I think for a basic analysis, I'd just take a bunch of tournament games, and then strip out the identities of any of the players.

Using the wiki article linked, I can figure out the outcomes of the matches for the first ten seasons and make a histogram.  There have been [11,  28,  44,  84,  44,  28,  11] matches with scores [0-6, 1-5, 2-4, 3-3, 4-2, 5-1, 6-0].  Not sure how my histogram code is handling ties but that's not too important.  My first attempt to fit to a binomial distribution shows that Dominion is 112% luck.

I think what this shows is that I need to account for the 1st player advantage in my model.

627

Dominion General Discussion / Re: could you ever see yourself playing Dominion for money?

« on: August 15, 2016, 08:27:41 pm »

Dominion has both a lot of luck and a lot of skill. Is there enough skill relative to luck that the best players tend to come out on top? Well as it happens we have a lot of data there. For example you could look at the final standings in the league (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?board=60.0), which has had 16 seasons.

This strikes me as an interesting little data analysis problem.  The question I have though, are the full results of Dominion League stored anywhere in some sort of standard format?

628

Let's Discuss ... / Re: empires: salt the earth

« on: August 15, 2016, 01:06:34 am »

Do you buy Salt the Earth first, or Provinces first?

In my first few games, I bought Provinces first, followed by Salt the Earth when I knew I was winning.  But that just makes my deck worse for a longer part of the game.

On the other hand, if I buy Salt the Earth first, how am I so sure I'm in the lead?  It also removes the element of surprise, which is fairly important when everyone is still new to Salt the Earth.

629

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 9: Hinterlands (Voting!)

« on: August 10, 2016, 01:23:22 am »

All the villages!

Abandoned Village
Types: Action – Reaction
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
When a player gains a Victory card, you may set this aside. If you do, gain a Silver in hand. Return this to your hand at the start of your next turn.

This is probably stronger than Mining Village, because it also gives you +$2 in the late game, but doesn't trash itself.  Seems okay.

Cottage
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card
+2 Actions

Gain a Copper, putting it into your hand.

This is very weak.  Weak villages are okay because sometimes you'll get them anyway when there aren't any other splitters available, but I think even a weak village should have something nice going for it.  I don't think being a cheap Bazaar is a nice enough thing.

Itinerant Monk
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Actions

You may discard a card; if you do, put your deck into your discard pile.
You may discard a Victory card; if you do, look through your discard pile and put one card from it into your hand.

I like the effect, but this causes a lot of mid-turn shuffles, which are slow.  People aren't playing with these fan cards online, you know.

Restored Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Actions

Discard a card. Draw up to 5 cards in hand.
When you gain this, put a treasure or victory card costing $2 or less from your discard pile on top of your deck.

I like this, but it's too similar to Production Village ($4-cost action, +2 actions, draw to 5) which won another contest a long time ago.  It's also similar to Fugitive, which Donald X had said was too strong for $4, and too weak for $5; I think this is also too strong for $4.

Trading Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions

Choose one: Gain a card worth up to $2; or trash a card worth $2 or less.

This seems fine at $5.  This lacks the utility of some other cantrip trashers (Junk Dealer, Upgrade), but it's made up by being a village, and the fact that trashing is optional.

Tribe
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+2 Actions
+1 Buy
When you gain this, look at the top 5 cards of your deck and put them back in any order, and then gain up to 5 Coppers, putting them on top of your deck.

To understand how weak this is, compare to Banquet.  To hit $5 with Tribe, you need to gain a Tribe, and at least one Copper, which is at least as much junk as Banquet.  Tribe also requires using the previous turn to set it up.  Finally, Tribe reduces the number of new cards you draw the next turn.

Wealthy Village
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card
+2 Actions
When you gain this, gain a Silver, putting it on top of your deck.

I think this is very strong.  It's like a Festival without +Buy.  Also, it's generally bad design to have a $4-cost card with is nearly strictly better than silver.

Now the VP cards!

Colosseum
Types: Victory
Cost: $8
Worth 5 VP
When you gain this, trash any two cards from the supply, each costing less than this.

Literally a second pile of Provinces?  It's actually harder to end the game with Colosseums than with Provinces, since emptying Colosseums doesn't trigger game end.

Prefecture
Types: Victory
Cost: $7
Worth 1 VP per different cost of the Action cards in your deck.
When you gain this, look through your discard pile, trash a Victory card and gain an equivalent amount of VP.

This is breaking one of those rules from Rinkworks.  In the middle of a game, you don't necessarily know how much VP a card is worth.  What if it's a Vineyards?  Or for that matter, a Prefecture?

Wetlands
Types: Action – Victory
Cost: $4
Worth 2 VP

You may reveal a Wetlands from your hand. If you do, +1 Card, +1 Action, +$1.
When you buy this card, you may gain a card costing up to $4.

It's hard to assess how good this is.  $4 for 4 VP is good, but then it adds two green to my deck.  And the peddler effect is only good if my deck is small, and small decks aren't good for slogs.  I like it.

I prefer a slight alteration: "+1 Action.  If you have another Wetlands in play, +1 Card, +$1."  Revealing cards is annoying, might as well have it in your play area.

Treasure cards!

Artifact
Types: Treasure
Cost: $4
Worth $1
+1 Buy

When you play this, if there are any Artifact tokens on this pile, remove one and +$2.
When you buy this, put an Artifact token on the Artifact pile.

Clarification: Artifact tokens are a supposed-to-be-infinite resource a la the Coin, Debt, and VP tokens.

I don't like that you can steal other people's Artifact tokens, as it discourages the second player from buying any.  I would prefer if each player had their own supply of Artifact tokens (similar to Trade tokens from LFN's fan expansion).  In general, I'm not excited about this card.

Pretty Penny
Types: Treasure
Cost: $2
Worth $1
The first time you buy this in a turn, +3 Buys.

There isn't much to differentiate this from Traveling Fair.  It is basically weaker and less interesting.

Now for the non-terminals!

Homing Pigeons
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Card
+1 Action

Look through your discard pile. You may put up to 2 differently named cards from your discard pile into your hand that are copies of cards you have in play.

Too strong.  The Bustling Village that is its own Settler.  And there's other stuff going on that makes it too complex.

Mountain Dwellers
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card
+1 Action

Reveal your hand. If you revealed 3 or more Treasure cards, +$1.
When you buy this, you may trash a Treasure card you have in play. Gain a Treasure card costing exactly $3 more than it.

It's one of those $5-cost peddlers that increases the value of your deck by $1, or possibly $2 under the right conditions.  It seems a solid and balanced card.  Although I guess for fan cards I expect a little more pizazz than I would from a canonical card.

Smelter
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+2 Cards
+1 Action
When you gain this, gain a Copper.

This is probably stronger than a peddler, but not more exciting.

Troglodyte Caves
Types: Action
Cost: $5
+1 Card
+1 Action

Discard any number of cards. +1 Card per card discarded.
When you gain this, you may reveal a card from your hand costing less than this. Gain a copy of it.

To reveal a card, you need to have kept it in your hand, rather than playing it.  It seems decent, particularly with $4 Victory cards.

All the other cards!

Bargain
Types: Reaction
Cost: $2
When you would gain a card, you may return this from your hand to the supply. If you do, instead, gain a card costing up to $2 more than that card to your hand.

I thought I saw an Ironworks/Bargain combo, but hilariously, Bargain prevents you from getting the +1 Action to immediately play the Goons you just gained.  A one-shot silver with extra utility; this is fine.

Raider
Types: Action – Attack
Cost: $6
+2 Cards

You may put your deck in your discard pile. If you do, +2 Cards.
All other players discard their deck.
When you buy this and your deck is empty, set it aside and put it into your hand at the start of your next turn.

Previous commenters seemed very puzzled as to why this is an attack card.  It's obvious!  Your opponents have to sit through a mid-turn shuffle each time you play it.  Hit them where it hurts!  Fun is a zero-sum game!

Sorcerer's Sack
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Card
+$1
While this is in play, when you buy a card, name a card, then reveal the top card of your deck. If it is that card you may either trash it or gain a copy of it.

This is pretty good, because it trashes cards without hurting your current turn.  Like Masquerade, or Moneylender.  It's cute how the +1 Card makes it harder to predict the top card of your deck.  It's very luck-based, but if you buy two cards you're guaranteed to hit.

Tinker
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+1 Buy
+$1

When you buy this or play it, you may trash a Copper from your hand. If you do, gain a Silver.

It's like an Amulet that does all three of its things.  I like it, but my one complaint is the on-buy effect.  I think it's too strong.  $4 to convert a copper to a silver AND you gain a card that is decent by itself.

630

Let's Discuss ... / Re: empires: encampment and plunder

« on: August 08, 2016, 08:52:49 pm »

In some early games with encampment, my friends and I would buy it early and then hold onto it for a shuffle or two hoping to get plunder and keep them.  I have decided now that this is the wrong strategy.  If you're buying encampments early on, better to play them at first opportunity.  If you play it the first time you see it, you net one card.  If you play it the second time you see it, you net 0 cards.

Now as for the correct strategy, I haven't figured that out yet.  I think getting gold first might be better.

631

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 8: Landmark (Voting!)

« on: August 07, 2016, 11:57:34 am »

Several of the ones I voted for were disqualified.  Including my own.  Too bad.  Further comments on the finalists:

Ossuary - My main problem with this is that the most trashed card isn't a really competitive slot most of the time.  It's nearly always copper.  1 VP for copper is not very exciting, and I prefer the one-time 15 VP swing from Fountain.  That said, maybe there are a few exciting games where copper trashing is bad, and Estates are competing with Hermits for most trashed card.  Even then, 1 VP for Hermits vs 1 VP for Estates seems like a small impact.

Burial Mounds - As AdrianHealey pointed out, all players will probably have similar cards in their deck.  If that is the case, what can one do to get the VP?  You could lock your opponent out of getting certain cards.  You could choose a unique card, buy two, and trash one (and your opponent's response is to gain one for themselves).  Maybe there are a few other shenanigans.  It seems difficult to take advantage of though.

Stockpile - As I said before, this seems really powerful.  There's little need for greening at all, just build exponentially.  The main thing that worries me is that this will have a negative impact on the game.  I like the slow-down in the late game.  Would Stockpile simply remove that step?

New World - I liked this card a lot, because I wasn't sure what to do with it.  After more thought, I think you should first go for a few provinces--if no one went for provinces, they'd each be worth 6VP.  However, if one player takes 5 or 6 provinces, then the other player can threaten to buy out the rest, along with a few duchies, and win.  So maybe you want ~3 provinces, and then empty duchies.  It seems like it would lead to many interesting and novel strategy considerations, and that's just in a standard game.  What about 3-player games, colony games?

Symposium - Previously, I thought you would just never use the action.  I suppose in the second shuffle, if your terminals collide you might try it.  Or is it more of a late game thing, when your engine duds because you drew hunting grounds without a village?  What's the strategic impact here?  Do I open double-terminal just for this?  Do I go for a slightly less reliable and more powerful engine?  I think probably not.
(Also I don't think this counts as a pure landmark.)

632

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Attacks that attack yourself

« on: August 04, 2016, 07:36:02 pm »

I really like Sacred Urn as it is not a Silver with a bonus but a potential Silver with a bonus, i.e. it is not strictly better than Silver so the cost of 4$ is OK.

It could probably also work at $3 (being a silver whose bonus is roughly equal to its penalty), but I was worried about double-Urn openings.  Sacred Urn is a soft-counter to itself, so it might just pull everyone in and slow the game down significantly.

633

Variants and Fan Cards / Attacks that attack yourself

« on: August 04, 2016, 04:18:51 pm »

Inspired by the thread about debt attacks, I came up with a few cards that attack yourself.  I thought I'd share just for discussion and inspiration.

Toll Road
$5 Action-Attack-Duration
Until the end of your next turn, on each player's Buy phase, cards cost <1> more.
At the beginning of your next turn, +4 cards, +1 Buy.

This hurts opponents for one turn, and hurts yourself for two turns.  But otherwise, the card is strong enough to balance it out.

Cobbler
$4 Action-Attack
Each player reveals the top three cards of their deck, puts the Copper back, and discards the rest.
+3 cards

Top-decking copper is weak, especially when you're also doing it to yourself.  But if Cobbler is your last action, Copper might not be so bad.

Sacred Urn
$4 Treasure-Attack
When you play this, it's worth $2 if you have no other Treasure cards in play.
Each player with at least 4 cards in hand places one on top of their deck.

Top-decking a card from hand can be good (Courtyard) or bad (Ghost Ship).  Can play this in such a way that it's good for you and bad for your opponents?  Or perhaps just play it when you have fewer than 4 cards left in your hand.

634

Let's Discuss ... / Re: empries: ritual

« on: August 04, 2016, 11:39:55 am »

I have not played a game with Ritual and decent trashing yet.

Without curse trashing, Ritual seems difficult to justify.  Trashing a Duchy or Province is 1 VP, and if you wouldn't buy a Great Hall you wouldn't buy Ritual.  With other cards, Ritual suffers from the same problem as Farmland--you're not just paying the price-tag, you're also paying the opportunity cost of not playing that expensive card.  Trashing a gold is like $7 for 5 VP.  Trashing one of those 5-cost actions is often ~$6 for 4 VP.  You might buy Ritual to prolong the game, but basic green seems better.

635

Let's Discuss ... / Re: empires: charm(ed)

« on: August 03, 2016, 12:03:34 pm »

After having played with Charm a few times now, I like it, but I find I'm using it for a Silver +Buy more often then I'd like.  You buy it thinking it would great to buy two $5's in one turn, but that's not so trivial when you need to get $5 without using the $2 from Charm.  I think it's best when there's multiple $4's or multiple $3's you want, say a $4 village and a smithy type card, or a Village/Menagerie/Oracle or something.  If the other $5's on the board are really important and the $3's and $4's are meh, I might skip Charm and just buy the $5 I want earlier. 

I did have one game where I was able to use Charm similar to a HoP Megaturn.  Not exactly the same, but in a deck that can draw itself, play two or three charms, and then has enough money to buy 3 or 4 cards (not a ton of money, just $12 or $13 or something), suddenly you're buying 4 cards and gaining another 12.  This is where Charm is at it's most fun.  If you're buying it and only gaining one extra card every 2 or 3 or 4 turns, it's not very exciting. 

Charm only works on your next buy, so you can't do that.

I also found that I use the Silver+Buy more often than I'd like.  Sometimes it's just hard to hit the high price points where the gaining is better.  I'd prefer to hit $5 over getting two $3s, and usually I'd prefer $6 over two $4s.

636

Let's Discuss ... / Re: empires: villa

« on: August 02, 2016, 11:51:57 am »

I played a couple games with Villa and Library, where that turned out to be a dominant combo.  Not only does Library make up for the lack of draw, you can also dump all your treasure, buy a Villa, then play Villa and Library.

Villa probably also enables a double tactician deck.  Each turn, play all your money, buy Villa, play Tactician, buy a Province.

637

Let's Discuss ... / Re: empires: royal blacksmith

« on: July 30, 2016, 12:02:54 pm »

Right, so on topic.

Playing with Royal Blacksmith revealed some unexpected pitfalls.  You really want to trash those copper, but once you start using Royal Blacksmith, it becomes difficult because coppers keep on getting discarded.  Second pitfall: if you shuffle your deck midturn, you get a face full of copper.

-how often do you buy it at $0? is there some reason that one shouldn't pick up a royal blacksmith or city quarter when one needs it at $0, other than, wow, 8 debt. how am i gonna dig myself out of that hole.

It's worth it to buy debt cards at $0 just so you can say, "It might have looked like I dudded, but it was part of my plan all along!"

638

Let's Discuss ... / Re: empires: royal blacksmith

« on: July 30, 2016, 11:49:18 am »

Combos with Counting House    * walks away... *

You might consider walking away a bit faster to avoid flung tomatoes.

Kind of reminds me of the kids that tried to tell me what a great combo Beggar and Moneylender was.

I was playing a game with a guy who bought Estates to trash to Sacrifice.

Hey, if buying Temples to trash to Temple is good, then so is buying Estates for Sacrifice.

639

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 8: Landmark (Voting!)

« on: July 29, 2016, 10:30:36 am »

I like to hear other people's impressions.  Here are a couple points where I'm disagreeing:

Statue
Types: Landmark
At the end of your turn, if you played 5 or more treasures that turn, take 2 VP from here.
Setup: Put 6 VP here per player.

Another big money one... Which also rewards $5/$2 openings, something i don't really like. It's okay-ish, but not too interesting.

I think an engine with lots of draw will more consistently be able to play 5 treasures.  So either an engine with treasure as payload, or big money with draw.  Although, those VP might go fairly quickly, and BM+Smithy might be the fastest way to pick them up early on.

- Burial Grounds/Mounds: I like the latter better; the former just encourages trashing, which you want to be doing anyway. I guess Burial Grounds might open up a way to mess with your opponent's deck by trashing one of their key cards. But I'm not sure if that is fun interaction; it encourages mirror play. Burial Mounds on the other hand changes the way you play the game, which is what you want out of a Landmark.

I dispute that one of these landmarks encourages mirror play, while the other does not.  So imagine a basic situation, Alice has a Baron, but Bob does not, and there's a Baron in the trash.  Under Burial Grounds, Alice wants a mirror (by trashing all Barons), and Bob does not.  Under Burial Mounds, Bob wants a mirror (by gaining a Baron), and Alice does not.  Either way, mirror play benefits only some of the players.

640

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 8: Landmark (Voting!)

« on: July 29, 2016, 01:09:25 am »

I disagree with above that Ossuary should be 2 VP.  I think more often than not, the most common card in the trash will be copper.  You probably don't want a landmark that gives 2 VP for each copper, coppers aren't that much fun.

641

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 8: Landmark

« on: July 28, 2016, 08:44:16 pm »

In general, I'm pretty impressed with these landmarks.  I think they're much easier to balance than other card-shaped thingies so a lot of them end up looking good.  There... are a few that I might downvote for not being pure landmarks, although I do like the ideas nonetheless. 

Comments on selected landmarks:

Archaeologist
Types: Landmark
When scoring, 1/3/6/10/15 VP if you have 1/2/3/4/5 copies of a particular Ruins.
Setup: Put a Ruins face-up sideways on each Kingdom pile. When a player gains the first card from a Kingdom pile, they also gain the Ruins on top of it.

As someone who loves slogs, I like the idea a lot.  Downside is that it promotes big money or mirroring pretty hard, especially early on.  I think the VP bonus could afford to be more drastic.  You probably still want to trash those ruins as much as possible.

Burial Grounds
Types: Landmark
When scoring, -3 VP for each differently named card in your deck which has a copy in the trash.

Burial Mounds
Types: Landmark
When scoring, 3 VP per differently named card in the trash that you have a copy of.

LOL, two similar ideas with similar names.  However, the similarity may be deceptive, since +3VP is completely different from -3VP.  Burial Grounds encourages you to trash cards that only your opponents have, while Burial Mounds encourages you to trash cards that only you have.

Cenotaph
Types: Landmark
During Clean-up, you may place one card you discard from play or your hand face down underneath this.
When scoring, 1 VP per differently named card underneath this that you have a copy of.

Clarification: You may place one card underneath Cenotaph every turn.

Oh my, trashing with zero opportunity cost.  Of course everybody gets it, so maybe it works?  But this is like Donate levels of crazy.

Deep Mine
Types: Landmark
Whenever a player plays their second action in a single turn, move 1 VP from the Province pile to here.
Whenever a player ends their turn without having played any action cards, take the VP from here.
Setup: Put 8 VP on the Province pile, plus 2 VP per player.

Aqueduct and Defiled Shrine are two of my favorite landmarks, because they create an auction encouraging you to junk your deck early on.  Deep Mine is a brilliant variation on the theme.  Unlike Aqueduct and Defiled Shrine, Deep Mine has more impact in the mid- and late-game.  There are also a lot more situations where taking the VP from Deep Mine more costly to some players than to others, whereas taking the VP from Aqueduct or Defiled Shrine tends to be equally costly for all players.

New World
Types: Landmark
When scoring, if there are 2 or fewer empty Supply piles, -4 VP for each Victory card costing $6 or more in your deck.

Wow, this landmark doesn't play around.  So obviously you go for duchies, but then the game will end on piles and you should have gotten provinces.  No, you go for provinces, and then switch to duchies?  No, you let your opponent go for provinces while you get duchies, and then you end it on provinces?  This is confusing, in a good way.

Plains
Types: Landmark
Whenever you gain a Victory card, move 2 VP from its pile to this. When you gain a Province, take the VP from this.
Setup: Put 4 VP on each non-Gathering, non-Province Victory card Supply pile per player.

After gushing about Deep Mine above, I'm more lukewarm on this card.  Being forced to skip your actions, or buy a curse, now that's gonna cost you.  But buying a province?  I wanted to do that anyway.

Sacrificial Cenote
Types: Landmark
Whenever you resolve an attack which ends up doing nothing to other players, or otherwise resolve a card that is prevented from having its printed effect, +1 VP.

Well there are a lot of rules questions.  For instance what if I play a smithy but there are no cards left in my deck?  Or if I trash a copper with Upgrade and there are no poor houses?  Or if I want to take a VP from Sacrificial Cenote, but I ran out of physical VP chips?  It's kind of weird to think about all the different times this might trigger.

Stockpile
Types: Landmark
When you buy a card costing at least $5, you may take it's price in debt. If you do, +3 VP.

This seems powerful enough that you'd just build golden decks with it all the time.  But you're draining piles in the process, so it guarantees a game end.

Symposium
Types: Landmark
Once per game, at any time during the Action phase, +1 Action.
At the end of the game, if you did not use that Action, +5 VP.

Unless that extra action is upgrading an estate into a province, it seems hard to justify.

Turtle Sanctuary
Types: Landmark
When you reshuffle, -1 VP.
At the end of your turn, if you did not reshuffle this turn, +1 VP

Clarification: -1 VP means you return one of your VP tokens to the supply. If you do not have any VP tokens, do nothing.

This rewards you for having a large deck and/or poor draw.  It seems to be targeted at all those deck-drawing engines, which is fair.  If deck-drawing is a dominant strategy, then punishing it can lead to interesting things.  The VP reward could be made stronger though.

642

Let's Discuss ... / Re: empires: groundskeeper

« on: July 26, 2016, 10:04:17 pm »

I always thought she looked like Donna from That 70s Show.

Even after playing a few games, I'm still puzzled as to how good Groundskeeper is.  There were a couple games where it seemed really good, but maybe that was only because of Ferry and Stonemason respectively.  Stonemason is a great Groundskeeper enabler.

I played another game where both players went for Groundskeepers, and we had a lovely Estate slog.  If we had a 3rd player going for Big Money would they have just won?  Eh, probably.

643

Let's Discuss ... / Re: empires: tax

« on: July 25, 2016, 12:37:58 pm »

I played one game of Tax, and there was no +Buy.  Under those conditions, the top part of the event wasn't very useful.  It was only bought a few times when people had really dud turns.  And it didn't actually do anything, because we often overdrew our money and could immediately payoff the debt.  I think Tax would be much more useful with +Buy.

644

Mini-Set Design Contest / Re: 2016 Treasure Chest Design Contest - Part 7: Prosperity (Finalists!)

« on: July 25, 2016, 12:32:11 pm »

Yay I won!   

I tried not to say much about my own card when it was being discussed, but I'll add a few thoughts now.  I designed Collector specifically in response to the competition, and had not shared it elsewhere.  The basic idea is to combine two things that normally can't go together--a draw-to-X card, and a lab.  At some point, I had considered making it draw-to-5, or having it discard a treasure for $1.  But I like playing the treasure because it inspires you to make use of all those alternate treasures in Prosperity.  The Collector-Quarry-Workshop combos probably aren't actually that common, but they're fun to think about.

I have no particular attachment to the name.  I was thinking Collector as in a coin collector.

I was surprised how much people discussed the interactive part of it--where each opponent may discard a card.  Mostly I thought it was a cute interaction between players, and you know, put those wherever you can.

I haven't tested it, so I'm not sure how powerful it is.  However, my instinct is that if I had the choice to nerf or buff it, I would buff it.  The main point of comparison is Advisor, which can hurt you if you only have a few, but can draw your deck when you have a lot.  Collectors are similar--if you have a few they act like cantrips, but if you have many they're like cheaper labs.  However, Collector seems tougher to pull off, since you need a more treasure-dense deck, and it might just choke on three greens.  On the plus side, it has the usual draw-to-X synergies--native villages, warehouses, villas, etc.

645

Let's Discuss ... / Re: tempires: emple

« on: July 22, 2016, 02:26:18 pm »

Now that I think about it, if Temple cost $3, it would often lead to a rush on Temples.  If even one person decided to open double Temple, the VP would accumulate fairly quickly, causing people to buy even more Temples.  I can see why $4 is the better design choice.

646

Let's Discuss ... / Re: tempires: emple

« on: July 22, 2016, 02:09:28 pm »

I think it's pretty likely that you can trash two cards atleast on this first shuffle which is pretty nice. Any mathematicians around here who can calculate the %? Don't forget that trashing itself is also an upside, as is the ~2VP you can get per play (assuming a mirror).
If you're other buys are sifting/draw, your Temple plays in later shuffles are also likely to trash two cards.

If you buy Temple/Silver, there's about 72% chance of drawing the Temple with copper and estate on T3/T4.  And for what it's worth, drawing Temple + 4 copper is bad, but it would have been bad to draw Steward + 4 copper too.

IMO, the $4 cost of Temple is a major downside, because it matters in the opening, which is usually when you want your trashers.

647

Let's Discuss ... / Re: empires: donate

« on: July 21, 2016, 07:43:31 pm »

I've only played with Donate once so far, and I think I bought it on turn 5.  I wanted a gold+Mandarin in there first.  It's not just that I wanted to pay off the debt, it's also that I wanted to trash as much copper as possible and have payoff leftover.

In that particular game, there was basically one viable strategy: Mint golds and buy Provinces.  Mint was the only way to trigger Labyrinth, and engine stuff was missing.  This left me wondering if Donate often leads to more scripted games.

648

Let's Discuss ... / Re: tempires: emple

« on: July 21, 2016, 02:49:24 pm »

Temple is amazing!  The trashing is about as strong as Steward, and if you're the next player to gain a Temple, you get 2 VP per play.  2 VP is super good.  There have been a couple times where I very nearly made a Temple golden deck, and I'm convinced that it would have been viable if I had just a little more support.  Yeah, it turns out you need +buys in a temple golden deck...

649

Dominion General Discussion / Re: My first Empires games

« on: July 20, 2016, 11:46:03 pm »

Doesn't Charlatan have a rules contradiction with debt?  It says players must use all their buys, but if you have debt then you are not allowed to use buys.  How was this resolved?

650

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt

« on: July 20, 2016, 05:34:57 pm »

I don't know what's going on in this thread, but the idea of exclusion testing intrigues me.  There are two ways to think about the strength of a card:

1. If one player has access to the card, and the other doesn't, how many more games do they win?
2. If all players have access to the card, how much does it impact the game?

For most cards, both kinds of strength are the same.  However, Fool's Gold is an example that has more type 1 strength than type 2 strength.  If you're the only person with access to the Fool's Gold, then you can always get 10 of them.  However, if all players have access, they can foil each other, and it might not be very good for anyone.

You can also consider attacks that are good defenses against themselves.  This is kind of a subtle point, but Young Witch sifts through cards, which mitigates the slogginess of having a cheap curser.  Or Pirate Ship, which provides non-Treasure payoff in games where you may need it.  These reduce the impact that a card has on the game, which is important if the impact would have been very negative.  (Of course, the impact isn't always negative.)

For this reason, I think it's important to give a debt attack a payoff bonus (as opposed to, say, drawing cards).